[coffey1]

Pixie dust? At least it's part of the plan over the long run. But last time I checked, there are no plans to convert the Sheppard subway to LRT as YOU were proposing (among other ideas). If anything, it's YOU who is selling pixie dust.

You've been making a big hoopla over the transfer at Sheppard (and rightfully so), therefore I'm calling you out for ignoring the two transfers along Eglinton that will be created under the subway plan that you are defending. If mentioning the planned Malvern LRT in brackets offended you so much, then lemme rewrite my post:

So if I want to travel east along Eglinton, all I need to do is take the Eglinton Crosstown, then transfer to the subway, then transfer again to the bus (or Morningside LRT).

View attachment 60518


Happy now? I think my point still stands. If you feel that I've misunderstood you, then would you care to explain yourself now that the pixie dust has been removed?

Thanks for clarifying. I believe the Eglinton LRT will be lightly used aside from those the worth there or do some shopping. The higher paying jobs, entertainment are in the Core and that's higher priority

Again I really fully agree with this Subway approach but it is much more effective in not having the transfer than the SLRT since its on the main Artery toward downtown and soon after likely North York. Trips to along Eglinton will see much lower ridership in comparison

Just the better of the two proposals IMO.

Regarding the SMLRT:

Wave 2 "Big Move" wont be built for another 10-20 years realistically. Any projects not on that radar. could be 30-100 years & in this political climate it will likely be 100+.

I believe the line was proposed with good intentions by the City, but it was hijacked by the Province to build a Pan-Am facility an use UTSC students money to help by dangling it over them. They got the tuition increase dropped it off the radar (Not Ford) as soon as the facility was being built & it became a fairy tale that some still believe was part of the funded transit City.

Nice facility indeed, but they sold the students a lie. And also toyed with a couple high Priority areas

 

[andrewpmk]

Pixie dust? At least it's part of the plan over the long run. But last time I checked, there are no plans to convert the Sheppard subway to LRT as YOU were proposing (among other ideas). If anything, it's YOU who is selling pixie dust.

You've been making a big hoopla over the transfer at Sheppard (and rightfully so), therefore I'm calling you out for ignoring the two transfers along Eglinton that will be created under the subway plan that you are defending. If mentioning the planned Malvern LRT in brackets offended you so much, then lemme rewrite my post:

So if I want to travel east along Eglinton, all I need to do is take the Eglinton Crosstown, then transfer to the subway, then transfer again to the bus (or Morningside LRT).

View attachment 60518


Happy now? I think my point still stands. If you feel that I've misunderstood you, then would you care to explain yourself now that the pixie dust has been removed?

This problem could easily be solved by having LRT and subway overlap for a short distance between Kennedy and Danforth Road.

 

[44 North]

Anyone who does agree 100% with the original transit city plan is Ford nation. That includes anyone who wants to build the DRL before the Jane LRT.

I was going to write something along those lines. There's an opinion about that if something is planned / funded / shovel-ready (or close enough), then it's the right plan. All of Transit City was funded and ready to go, but had it been built like you say Jane would've been completed over a decade before the DRL. And the DRL would never get to travel north of B/D, because that's where the Don Mills LRT would've taken over. And then if we want to expand things, much of the Big Move was ready to go - with a project like Yonge North expected to open this year. But we know now that Transit City wasn't the be all end all right solution, and nor was the Big Move. And we also know that the Prov can't follow through with funding commitments or priorities. So I think naturally things are worth a second look, whether it be adopting the proposed Sheppard Subway conversion, or pooling once-promised Prov funds for other Scarb (or downtown) projects.

On the issue of ridership / modes / priorities / promises, I stumbled on this 2008 Metrolinx RTP Backgrounder Modelling and on p27 it gives some interesting numbers compiled together. Might be useful for this debate, but also for region-wide transit in general.

Scarb RT: 6,400
TYSSE: 7,200
Eglinton: 7,800
Yonge North: 8,800
DRL: 17,500

And I also have trouble understanding why Tory and the Prov are so keen on Stouffville GO when its projected ridership is so low compared with other corridors.

Stouffville: 3,100
LSW: 23,000
LSE: 26,300
Kitchener: 19,800
Richmond Hill: 18,100
Milton: 17,000

 

[LNahid2000]

And I also have trouble understanding why Tory and the Prov are so keen on Stouffville GO when its projected ridership is so low compared with other corridors.

Stouffville: 3,100
LSW: 23,000
LSE: 26,300
Kitchener: 19,800
Richmond Hill: 18,100
Milton: 17,000

Stouffville ridership is 15,000 as per slide 19 of the below document. Not sure where you got 3,100 from. All your numbers seem to be off actually.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0140905_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf

 

[44 North]

Stouffville ridership is 15,000 as per slide 19 of the below document. Not sure where you got 3,100 from. All your numbers seem to be off actually.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0140905_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf

those were peak point 2031 numbers, calculated in 2008. Stouffville was AD2W (but not as RER). From p26 of the report I linked in the post.

 

[BurlOak]

Interesting that that SRT number went from 6,500 to 12,000 when the transfer was removed (June 2012 metrolinx benefits case). The numbers do not support the argument that a simple transfer makes no difference.

 

[nfitz]

IAnd I also have trouble understanding why Tory and the Prov are so keen on Stouffville GO when its projected ridership is so low compared with other corridors.

Precisely!! Of course, it's not got all the extra DumbTrack stations.

Stouffville ridership is 15,000 as per slide 19 of the below document. Not sure where you got 3,100 from. All your numbers seem to be off actually.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0140905_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf

15,000 is total ridership for the entire day in both directions. 3,100 is the peak load in one hour of AM peak in one direction.

 

[Adjei]

15,000 is total ridership for the entire day in both directions. 3,100 is the peak load in one hour of AM peak in one direction.

He stated that was the projected ridership, whatever that means. So he's even more wrong.

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting that that SRT number went from 6,500 to 12,000 when the transfer was removed (June 2012 metrolinx benefits case). The numbers do not support the argument that a simple transfer makes no difference.

Because the transfer does make a difference despite what the ideologues say. The way to fix this (if we aren't willing to drop the transfer at Kennedy) is to move more traffic to lines that can built without transfers: ie. Eglinton and a reconstituted Sheppard corridor.

 

[rbt]

What good does the Sheppard LRT do? It forces commuters off who likely have already taken a bus to transfer technologies in the same direction. You really dont get it. And have no clue what is good for Scarborough.

Great. If you're satisfied with the current bus service, then the job is accomplished.

Also, I do get it. The works department travel patterns for Scarborough are pretty clear. Any actual solution needs to reach North to Steeles and it's probably safe to ignore SCC entirely since it's not an actual destination for most trips; it's simply a transfer point. A strong local grid for 5km trips is far more important than connections to either North York or Downtown.

Subway to Scarborough on either Sheppard or SRT replacement isn't going to do anything for local traffic.

LRT as proposed may not have been the solution either; but at least that plan included better local bus service (buses would have free'd up for local service).

What actually happened is the local population was driven into a tizzy and made greedy, and it backfired hard as should have been expected. Beggars, and where TTC is concerned we're all beggars (stingy with funding), can't be choosy.


I suspect Brampton is going to learn the same lesson if Wynne gets kicked out of office and the now unspent LRT money redirected; perhaps another Highway 407 extension. Politics sucks; move quickly or not at all because opportunities are fleeting.

 

[Rainforest]

Interesting that that SRT number went from 6,500 to 12,000 when the transfer was removed (June 2012 metrolinx benefits case). The numbers do not support the argument that a simple transfer makes no difference.

That's for Eglinton, not for SRT. A dramatic shift of SRT riders from BD subway to Eglinton would occur if SRT and Eglinton were interlined.

 

[gweed123]

That's for Eglinton, not for SRT. A dramatic shift of SRT riders from BD subway to Eglinton would occur if SRT and Eglinton were interlined.

Good catch. Yes, the numbers for Eglinton jump when interlined. The SLRT stays about the same. Also worth noting is that it reduces the crunch at Kennedy, since the transfer volumes drop dramatically. However, it would presumably increase the transfer numbers at Eglinton-Yonge by a similar amount, which may cause problems.

 

[Rainforest]

I'm starting to think a far better idea would be something like this:

1) Two stop Bloor-Danforth extension, Danforth and Eglinton and terminus at Eglinton GO.
2) At-grade Danforth-McCowan LRT. From Danforth/Eglinton up McCowan. They could take it all the way up to Milliken if they want. This would allow for replacement of McCowan North, one of the busiest bus routes at SC.
3) Keep Eglinton LRT on Eglinton and then continue on Kingston and up through Morningside as per the SMLRT plan. They can short-turn some trains if they don't need the frequency.
4) Serve Malvern with a spur of Sheppard, up Neilson Road or up the Progress hydro corridor.

But what about STC; no rail service there, except the at-grade McCowan LRT that passes by 400 m to the east?

Or, would you build SLRT too?

Or heck, skip the subway extension and accelerate the SMLRT branch.....

The subway would have to be skipped in this scheme. The demand east of Kennedy towards Eglinton GO is definitely lower than the demand north-east of it towards STC.

We are having a long and heated debate about a subway that would carry 9,500 pphpd at peak. Certainly it would be hard to find support for a subway that carries perhaps 5,000 or less.

 

[Rainforest]

The bigger capacity constraint is actually the Stouffville corridor south of Kennedy. Metrolinx has enough room to add tracks to LSE, if warranted. This is why I proposed the shuttle idea, which would stop at Kennedy and avoid the south Stouffville capacity constraint. North of Kennedy, the SRT ROW can be used to lay mainline rail tracks.

Good point. I thought of this option, too. Not in the sense that I firmly support it (I think it is easier to build the subway at this point); but rather in the sense that potentially, it is technically feasible and has a number of benefits.

Basically, you would implement new "SRT" using mainline, or mainline-compatible, equipment (rather than LRT or ICTS). That would allow to operate both the frequent rail service between Malvern, STC, and Kennedy, and the less frequent but still valuable direct service to Union.

The only concern on the technical side is the need to fit mainline trains in the Midland curve and then in the guideline / Progress corridor; but I would think that it is doable if the right type of rolling stock is selected.

A much bigger concern is not technical but rather administrative. The City Council knows about 2 options; subway ir light rail. Trying to subscribe them for the 3-rd option (mainline) would be a tall order; some of them are pretty thick to be honest. Plus, the inevitable delays that will add months and years to the completion date.

That's why the subway remains my preference; but, as already said, I can't deny that your proposal makes sense.

 

[Rainforest]

Great. If you're satisfied with the current bus service, then the job is accomplished.

Also, I do get it. The works department travel patterns for Scarborough are pretty clear. Any actual solution needs to reach North to Steeles and it's probably safe to ignore SCC entirely since it's not an actual destination for most trips; it's simply a transfer point. A strong local grid for 5km trips is far more important than connections to either North York or Downtown.

Subway to Scarborough on either Sheppard or SRT replacement isn't going to do anything for local traffic.

LRT as proposed may not have been the solution either; but at least that plan included better local bus service (buses would have free'd up for local service).

What actually happened is the local population was driven into a tizzy and made greedy, and it backfired hard as should have been expected. Beggars, and where TTC is concerned we're all beggars (stingy with funding), can't be choosy.

That's all reasonable, except ... do the residents of Scarborough actually think that their local bus service is not working well, and desperately needs improvements?

I don't live in Scarborough, and thus don't know for them. I know that my local bus servise (#60 Steeles) is OK. I would not mind it replaced with LRT, but I don't think it needs more buses. (Although, it would benefit from better management of the buses already assigned to #60.)